MOU 25-05
12-02-2025 | 09:58 AM
#1161
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 3,417
Likes: 863
My prediction: Quick Slips to never come to fruition. Why would they dump money -- large or small -- into this? It doesn't lower the cost of covering trips. I don't think suspending QHCP look back is going to move the company to implement QS faster.
Like Oofff said ... the company doesn't care which pilot gets paid -- we do.
A5S
Like Oofff said ... the company doesn't care which pilot gets paid -- we do.
A5S
In this current checkers game they're playing it's quite simple - put your slips in, turn on auto-accept and when the robot calls for the IA ignore it. But we can't seem to do that. IA's are a defacto proffer now, we don't HAVE to take them. The scummy deal makers will still make deals. That's for DALPA to address. However, the fact many are taking the IA "proffer" takes away leverage. You want your GS/WS etc, don't call back for the IA. If more do this it ends this pretty quick and gives us leverage to use. Sometimes this pilot group is its own worse enemy.
12-02-2025 | 10:07 AM
#1164
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 475
Likes: 61
The contract requires that all flying that the company knows about be put in the bid package. So how does all the open time manifest between the bid awards and the helmet fire that seems to start 2 days prior?
12-02-2025 | 10:16 AM
#1165
Banned
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 499
yeah, sometimes you have a disagreement about what the terms are and need clarity. that’s what this seems like to me. so again, since you’ve used the phrase so many times, what actions by the company that were illegal before are not under the new agreement?
12-02-2025 | 10:18 AM
#1166
Banned
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 499
i’m not arguing that the method by which this mou passed was or wasn’t right.
i’m arguing the idea that we should have gotten more or a different outcome, and what leverage we have to effect that.
12-02-2025 | 10:26 AM
#1167
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,242
Likes: 702
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
12-02-2025 | 10:35 AM
#1168
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,242
Likes: 702
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
I'm arguing we will never know because we already "solved" the problem. And the fog of numbers isn't even enough to start the conversation. It was a rush to do "something" when we didn't need to do anything. And got nothing, except an ALPA endorsement of the current practice and a pinky swear.
12-02-2025 | 10:43 AM
#1170
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 286
Likes: 193
If only 5% of the 320 pilots have an oobws auto accept in, it’s something like 40 hours to go through that step of coverage alone. Tell me how does CS cover a trip in a timely matter with that?
Auto accept is the problem. CS is now using loopholes to get around the problem. They need to fill the trips somehow.
Auto accept is the problem. CS is now using loopholes to get around the problem. They need to fill the trips somehow.
1) Give out VAS. Especially with forecast IROP weather.
2) Give out more SC 7+ to those who request it, especially with forecast IROP weather.
3) Assign GS two days out, instead of breaking them up and using up 3 RES pilots with double DH to cover a multi day trip.
4) Give out more SS weeks in advance when you see thin reserve manning
5) Give out more PBS premium rotations a month in advance when you see thin manning
6) Offer premium reserve days in advance when you see thin manning
7) Run automated coverage faster so at least **some** of those trips can be properly covered 12 hours out instead of sitting unattended and being pushed into emergency coverage.
8) Hire more (pilots and schedulers).
Should I go on? Auto accept is not the problem.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
